from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest

issue one, santorum streak! >> i don't stand here to claim to be the conservative alternative to mitt romney. i stand here to be the conservative alternative to barack obama! >> rick santorum this week made it three for three. republican presidential nominee hopeful santorum won all three primaries, missouri, minnesota, colorado. the break-up -- missouri, santorum 55%, mitt romney 25%.

ron paul 12%. newt gingrich was not on the ballot. minnesota -- santorum 45, paul 27, romney 17. gingrich 11. colorado -- santorum 40, romney 35, gingrich 13, paul 12. why did santorum score so big? he tells us why. >> health care, the environment, cap and trade, and on the wall street bailouts, mitt romney has the same positions as barack obama! and in fact, would not be the best person to come up and fight for your voices for freedom in america! >> the associated press says they gained 55 delegates, putting him second in the delegate count behind mitt. romney won 12, santorum 72 delegates. question, what accounts phosphore having won four outs of eight caucuses and or

primaries? pat buchanan? >> perseverance first. secondly, he's an authentic conservative. he's had some lapses, but he's clearly one of most conservative in the race. third, you had michele bachmann, perry, cain, newt -- all vying for the conservative title, collapsing. he is the last man standing against mitt romney. and here's the real reason, john -- it's mitt romney's been unable to close this deal with the conservatives. he's been unable to sell them. the tea party conservative evangelical rite is desperately resisting this arranged marriage with mitt. it's astonishing that mitt hasn't been able to close it and that's what santorum has going for him. but, i will still put my money in the long run that mitt takes it. but it is going to be a long, long haul now. >> is newt capoot? >> newt is -- he did the wooden stake thing at the cross. he can't come back, i think, a third time. a souffle, it was -- miss

roosevelt's daughter said you cannot get a souffle to rise a second time. >> eleanor? >> i think this insures the best case for romney is he gets a nomination but limps towards it. i think romney took his foot off the gasp he ignored these three -- one primary which wasn't going to yield any delegates p two caucuses. and i don't believe any delegates were awarded. the turnout was extremely low, less than 6% in missouri, less than 2% in minnesota, less 1% of the registered voters in colorado. these were states romney won four years ago. he assumed he could just walk through them. so santorum has this second surge, i guess, if you count his first surge after iowa, because of the dissatisfaction with romney, also because the social issues came galloping back into the campaign. one, the economy is looking better. so you stake your whole campaign on the economy. that's not looking so good. secondly, susan b. komen ç foundation having to back down

after uprising when they wanted to cut off planned parenthood. and then the fight over contraceptives without co- payments under the obama health care has suddenly awakened the social conservatives, and now they have a vehicle in santorum. >> santorum did his retail appearances 22 in colorado. i want to talk about romney, then you can come next. i know you're chafing the bit. romney salutes santorum! >> this was a good night for rick santorum. want to congratulate snore santorum, wish him the bolt. we'll keep campaign but i expect to become our nominee with your help. >> why so confident, mitt? bibii answer, electability, in a match-up with sitting president barack obama it's even steven. obama, 48%. romney, 48%. so says gallop. that's a leap ahead this to

coming november. >> i do. thanks for explaining it, though. >> surprised bithat? >> yes. this is the thing with romney, there's a resistance to him among conservatives, and so far he is only won in the states where he's basically a favorite son like new hampshire, or where he has made the rubble bounce with a nuclear negative attacks against the opponents. and he did not do that against santorum in these states. i think the outcome here makes a broker convention much more of a possibility, if santorum stays strong in the midwest. if gingrich retains some strength in the south, you could see mitt squeezed below 50% of the delegates, which one would make it likelier that santorum is vice presidential nominee and likelier although still a long shot you would get jeb bush at a convention. >> how did you like romney's salute to santorum? >> i think it was -- >> polite? >> yes, it was polite.

it was gracious. >> smooth? >> reasonably smooth, and also -- >> sincere? >> oh, yes. new york he really meant it! he was so happy! there was -- sincere, how sincere are these politicians in these moments in their careers when they have to concede to somebody whom they think is an absolute nonactor? >> they could have acted like gingrich and not said anybody. >> nobody can act like beginning riff. no way. >> you got the super-pack start bombings santorum, around the clock. >> what you have now are millions of dollars being spent by the republicans to destroy each other. i'm amazed romney still has a 48% national support. i think when you get into campaign and the nominee, it will be very different. >> let's look ahead as we did with santorum, and take a look at santorum vis-a-vis obama, 2012, whe electability factor is, okay?

here we go. >> hypothetical november match- up poll now -- obama, 51%. santorum, 45%. in a presidential election, that's an obama landslide against santorum. >> good news for the republicans, john. look, if romney now is running even with obama after they've been butchering each other through debates, campaigns, all that, and he's even, there ought to be reagan at one time was 30 points behind carter. they have a fighting chance still to win this. >> of course they have a fighting chance but you can't argue the primaries are strengthening mitt romney. they've exposed all kinds of weaknesses. but they're not going to go away, pat. he didn't form a collective second skin over everything. he's very vulnerable. >> okay. does -- what happened this week going to have any effect on obama's bid to be reelected

president? obama's new on contraception. can you -- let's listen to this. >> under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care, that includes contraceptive services. no matter where they work. so that core principle remains. but, if a woman's employer is a charity, or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive service as part of their health plan, the insurance company -- not the hospital, not the charity -- will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive carefree of charge. >> do you think he slipped out through the side door? >> no. this is a huge -- the original policy was a huge unforced error. i don't think they realized the kind of reaction they would cause in the church. >> recap the original. what was the original? >> congress passes a law which

has a vague provision sayings you have to cover preventive services. and it's left to the archbishop to come up with this policy, which is religious institutions that aren't exactly churches have to provide this kind of insurance coverage, including contraceptives and sterilization for their employees, even though it violates their religious convictions. you have to -- monks running catholic schools, having to buy this kind of insurance, and this is a formal fig leaf that do does nothing to fix it. is a huge -- >> can we gets the other side. >> just a moment! ers [everyone talking at once] >> fully back down or get slapped down by the courts in violation of federal law. >> before i go to eleanor, that sarcastic reference to the archbishop, who is he? >> you picked up on that! it's the secretary of hhs. and there's another problem with -- another problem with the obama care. >> secretary of health and human services. >> trinity girl, normal catholic. whether he they antagonize and

get the bishops of the church who grew up in democrat, families fighting him a those it's a religious war for two weeks, he's been badly damaged. >> first of all, when those two get out of their pulpits it's nice to be able to -- i don't think [everyone talking at once] secretary sebelius -- >> doing all right in your own area over there! >> i don't think secretary sebelius considers herself a nominal catholic as you say. it was a little -- [everyone talking at once] >> slashing romney? >> i think she's pro-choice on abortion. how about cue be that and be a traditionalist catholic? >> she's pro-choice, out of a lot of catholics are. and i point out that the institutes for medicine which ruled that contraceptives are part of preventive health care, is responsible for similar laws in 28 of our states. >> all the -- [everyone talking at once]

>> catholic church go back 2,000 years. >> when can comes to institutions, on the base of what authority does the institute of medicine trump the longstanding, moral teaching of the catholic church he it comes to what catholic institutions -- should do? >> when you put on a collar you can come back and lecture me but that's enough. that's enough. >> what about the is this time obama is trampling on gods's turf. >> oh, please! >> can he get out by moving to the insurance company? >> you just saw, that's a partial capitulation which is not enough but -- >> not enough? why can't the insurance companies figure it out? >> get them out -- get them out of our catholic institutions is what the demand is. >> what do you think of -- >> i thought it was partially effective. i don't think it really dealt with the main issue. i think he's been hurt politically which is what that is about and that will last because you have people

particularly in the church and in the sermons that will be delivering, that is really going to affect the catholic vote. >> how much money is at stake? >> not money! >> i know it's not money, it's principle. but how much -- [everyone talking at once] >> where does the money come from? >> i çcan answer that! >> are we going through the same old litany of iud is all right? go through the morning after pill? >> on-- >> go through the whole rehearsal? >> i'm familiar with the moral issues. i'm not familiar with the commercial issues. >> well, i am! >> the operational issues. >> i am. it costs the women about $600 a year for contraceptive services. the insurance -- 600 dollars. >> where does that go? >> the insurance companies are happy to provide this free because in the end, it's cheaper for them than to provide other services when people do not use contraception. and no religious institution gets to dictate public policy.

>> they do in their churches and they do in their schools! >> in their hospitals! >> don't forget, they do in -- >> orphanages! those are institutions. >> not when they employ hundreds of thousands of other people who are not catholic and they are entitled -- >> in the church to do something [everyone talking at once] that's where you have issue two, the united states and the , made this clear. there's not one iran to develop a nuclear weapon. if they proceed and we get intelligence they're proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps are necessary to stop them. >> including military steps? >> there are no options that are offer the table. >> defense secretary leon panetta says that if iran proceeds to acquire a nuclear

weapon, the u.s. will use any means to stop them. ç but some ask, where's the beef? there's no evidence that iran has even decided to get a nuclear weapon, they say. in ssment of israeli officials." also, neither the head of the international atomic energy agency, the iaea, nor the director of the u.s. central intelligence agency, david petraeus, is willing to assert that iran now has a nuclear weapons program for sure. iran says its nuclear program is for several ann energy, not for a nuclear bomb. iran also says that it's held meetings with the united nations iaea watchdog, which

discussions the iaea describes as "constructive." the iaea will visit iran next month, but the supreme leader of iran, ayatollah khomeini, says that veil threats if actualized by the united states will come at a price. the u.s. military threats against us are to their detriment and a real was will harm them 10 times more. the more they threaten us, the more harmful it will be for them. they should know and of course they know that in return for such war threats and oil embargo threats, we have our own threats to make, me, if dee >> he's the holiest of the eamons. >> do you think that's worrisome?

72 it's anticipated. there's nothing surprising about that. i don't think he has quite the backup to support what he is saying. >> why? >> why? because there's no doubt they have to be aware and that they are taking a very, very big gamble with going ahead with nuclear weaponry and this is -- there's no mystery. this is being predictable for a long time. >> this is a much higher level of escalation on iran's part, his saying that. >> they've been saying that in different forms for quite a while. >> not at that level. not at the level of the imam. >> but whoever said, it everybody knows it reflects the values, the policies, of the imams and the leader so there's no doubt about that. something to not be said casually. he's just raising it in verbal terps to a different level. >> we've been discussing the war over there, with we know iran has been one

of targets of the yankee empire for a long time. it's one of reasons for our solidarity with you. >> iran ann president mahmoud ahmadinejad met last month with venezuelan president chavez. it was ahmadinejad's trip to the area, part of a foreign nation tour last month of latin america, venezuela, nicaragua, cuba, equador. the tour apparently was intended to showcase iran's mounting influence in our hemisphere, latin america, in the backyard of the u.s., on top of reports that the kruz force in the brought to kill the ambassador to the u.s. is operating in latin america. the chair of the house foreign affairs committee, ileana ros- lehtinen, said at hearings last week that iran's presence in latin america is troubling to the u.s. >> these alliances can pose an immediate threat by giving iran

a platform in the region to carry out attacks against the united states, our interests and allies. >> attacks against the united states! in that connection, there's the nightmare scenario, spelled out at the hearing by miami university scholar of cuban affairs, jose azel. >> my worst nightmare would be a nuclear iran and a venezuela willing to accept the deployment of those weapons in venezuterritory, for example. it is within the realm of possible. >> you get what he's saying? >> yes. >> that iran operating in south america might nuke the united states. you believe that? >> no, no. what he's really saying is they can launch terrorist attacks. >> what is the ultimate terrorist attack, the nuclear bombs! they come in suitcases. >> if iran puts nuclear weapons in latin america or south america, you will have a major

outbreak of war against iran. >> are you taking this serious? >> no, not as you see. i don't think it's frivolous. i don't think they're talking about having nuclear weapons. >> john, you have been taking in -- >> taken in? >> this is war party -- >> prime time here! ahmadinejad! >> castro is 85. ahmadinejad -- >> reason why they can set up. >> the clapper! >> in cuba! >> the clapper says they don't get a nuclear weapon. they haven't made a decision to build one. panetta said the same thing. intelligence says we're not sure they even move into a nuclear weapon. the point is there's a war party in this city which is trying to drive this country into preemptive war in iran. >> did you hear the chairwoman say what she said, they can launch attacks from there? >> they're not going to -- >> are you making fun of her? >> it's a war party propaganda to the nth degree. >> i agree. >> what do you think the consequences are? >> they're trying to get us in a war with iran.

>> they could at least have more focus and make sure we know what's going on. >> we haven't decided to build a bomb and they're going to -- >> i'm not fair mongering here! i just think this is an angle [everyone talking at once] >> we have considered the fact that iran can fight back. >> from over here! >> which is why this country and why opinion is divide in israel about whether there should be a military attack. there's sanctions on iran now, they've lost half its value. europe said they're not going to import their oil. the squeeze is really being put on them. let's give that some time to work. >> running outs of time. they may decide to try retaliation to make the americans ease up in another way. >> how? how and what? >> you just saw it! >> a nuclear weapon out of

issue three, manning to manning ham. >> four man rush. eli throwing into traffic. they rule it a catch by manningham! >> a super camp by new york giants wide receiver mario manningham from quarterback eli manning, sealed the giants' victory in this year's super bowl. manning to manningham, giants 21, patriots 17. this 46th super bowl is the most watched program of any kind in u.s. television history! but behind this record breaker lies a sobering issue, trauma. concussion trauma. induced by football head concussion. the nfl is so concerned that lust sunday the league tested a new technology to detect concussions immediately. a special chinstrap was attached to the patriots'

running back ben jarvis green ellis. the strap under his chin was equipped with lights that blink red if the strap took a hit of such intensity, a head concussion could result. the u.s. congress is also interested in concussion phenomenon. here's an ex certainly from one hearing almost two years ago chaired by michigan representative john conyers, he is asking nfl commissioner roger goodell about the long- term effects of concussions. >> just asked you a simple question. what's the answer? >> the answer is a medical experts are no better than i would with respect but we're not treat that in any way in delaying anything that we -- >> this issue is really deadly, in fact. in february, 2011, former chicago bears running back dave duerson committed suicide. he shot himself in the chest. he left a note saying, "please see that my brain is given to

the nfl's brain bank." he wanted this so his brain could be researched for concussion data. duerson had earlier revealed ç suffered multiple concussions, doctors had said so. the concussions had caused migraine headaches, mood swings, insomnia, and depression. this is why he chose not question, by what right is congress able to conduct hearings on concussions in the nfl? pat? >> they can conduct hearings on anything they want, john. but i take the imp taking of your question. i think congress which is the least popular institution perhaps in the united states holding hearings on the most popular institution, the nfl, i think is absurd. they ought to stay out of it. it's a serious problem. i think the nfl ought to deal with it but i don't think the congress a ought -- >> there's a very serious

issue. ites also high school football. there's an estimated 100,000 concussions every year in high school football, so they've got to find a way to deal with that problem. else that a very serious. >> than even you think! concussions in football are not just an issue for the nfl. lots of young americans even starting at age 6 or 7 play football. a 2010 study by purdue university and indiana university published in the journal of neurotrauma found an estimated 43,000 to 67,000 high school football players suffer a concussion every season. a lot of these injuries be much higher. by the way, congress gives the nfl an antitrust exemption. that's the reason why congress is legally entitled to get in. you follow me? so when you rethink this -- >> this is the thing. this story is about the former

players and their suffering are heart-wrenching. i don't think the teams or the players themselves can be trusted to police this. i think the nfl will have to have some arbiter deciding whether someone should be pulled from the game or not. >> that hearing i think was two years ago, and the nfl since then has really stepped up to the plate in terms of research, better equipment, and they do have people policing the fields and so forth. but i take your point, kids who play football are not getting the attention the nfl players are getting. and we know a lot more about what happens to your brain. i personally could do without football. but -- people in this country love football even more than they lover the catholic church, pat. so -- i mean, it's not going to happen. so i'm reconciled to that. but i think we have to get better at protecting people's brains. >> congress can prohibit in light of the fact there's so much -- >> congress should stay outs of it. >> stay

there will be no military involvement of the united states in syria, true or u.s. military involvement in syria, true or false? >> true. >> true. >> true. >> false. >> answer, true! bye-bye!